Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
Wenn Ihr glaubt das 2006 das Megajahr war, dann schaut mal in das Jahr 2000
(GRINS: Im Jahr 2000 waren alle Aktionäre dieser Welt total bekloppt)
| |||||||||||||
|
Optionen
| Boardmail an "PANGÄA" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Optionen
| Boardmail an "PANGÄA" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Optionen
| Boardmail an "PANGÄA" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
| Patriot Scientific (BB) Aktie | 0.175  (17.85%) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Optionen
| Boardmail an "PANGÄA" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Optionen
| Boardmail an "PANGÄA" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Ich wünsche noch einen netten Abend und sag mal bis Morgen.
greetz joker
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
das war das letzte mal.....
kann man den net aussperren joker ????
Allerdings kann ich ihm nicht verbieten seine Dummheit woanders kund zu tun, denn dann müsste man gerade im Hot Stoch Bereich ne Menge user sperren.:-)
Diejenigen, die ein ernsthaftes Interesse an einem Wert haben, werden sich selbst ein Bild machen und sich durch solche unfundierten Äusserungen nicht abschrecken lassen.
Setze ihn einfach auf Ignore und fertig.
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Was PTSC mit den Einahmen angestellt hat und warum letztlich der Kurs nicht steigt.
"Some K and CC thoughts
posted on Aug 23, 09 05:49PM
Now that the CC is over, and the initial reaction to the PTOs 336 Recert
Intention, I'd like to make a few observations.
I thought RG had a rough CC; because not only did Stan directly challenge the
wisdom of RGs continued employment, but because those responsible finally had to
come clean about their very bad miscalculations in reading the nation's economic
landscape, and in the specific Marketing, Timing, Funding, and adoption of
Crossflo; all criticisms that have been previously and accurately written about
on this message Board. We are now up to 31 fulltime employees and additional
part-timers. They also had to acknowledge the huge loss in Advot, that it maxed
out it's revolving Line of Credit, and that it needs additional critical
funding.
I read in the "K" with interest that we still maintain our cash and cash
equilivents in an offshore account in the Cayman Islands. That our total
current assets decreased $2MM to only about $8MM, which I believe includes the
$3MM loan from the ARS Collateral. That we paid out $177,000 in cash for PTSC
Employee Bonuses, paid $1.75MM in Crossflo payroll alone, and paid out an
additional $245K in cash retention bonuses to former PDSG employees
I was reminded that we paid out close to $2MM for the Goodwill alone in the
Crossflo purchase, and paid Vigily 30+% of the total purchase price for their
Goodwill.
I also found this clause troubling, especially the last half:
..."Pursuant to the acquisition of Crossflo, we have indemnified the former
owners of Crossflo for any claims or losses resulting from any untrue, allegedly
untrue or misleading statement made in a registration statement, prospectus or
similar document. Additionally, we have agreed to indemnify the former owners of
Crossflo against losses up to a maximum of the merger consideration for damages
resulting from breach of representations or warranties in connection with the
acquisition."...
As to the CC, I think there may be some friction between RG and the BOD over the
mind numbing blunders in Crossflo projections by Management. I think that RG
pretending he did not know the price jumped up 30% that day was disingenuious
and disappointing. Making the comment that Bonuses will be withheld until PDGS
achieves "Operating Objectives" without identifying those objectives is playing
games with Shareholders.
Announcing that the next SHM will now be in January 2010 and not in October as
previously indicated, is very very interesting and potentionally significant.
I personally now expect an extremely important business plan change to occur between now and the end of the year. An event which Shareholders will have strong opinions
about, and which will impact Shareholders and this company greatly.
My Ts & Os"
Warum dieses Verhalten sich so entwickelt hat ist nicht nachvollziehbar und eine Erklärung dafür hat er nicht abgegeben. Man hat das Gefühl er kann garnicht mehr in PTSC investiert sein bei dem was er so von sich gibt.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff.
vs.
DEUTSCHE BANK AG,
Defendant.
JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Rules 7.2 and 12.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and Rule 10 of the Court’s Individual Rules, plaintiff PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (the “Plaintiff”) and defendant DEUTSCHE BANK AG (the “Defendant”), by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move this Court to extend the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, dated July 10, 2009. As grounds for this joint motion, Plaintiff and Defendant state as follows:
1. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint with this Court on July 10, 2009. A summons was issued on july 14, 2009.
2. Plaintiff has represented that it served the Complaint on Defendant on July 28, 2009.
3. Defendant previously requested, and Plaintiff has agreed to, a brief extension of time to respond to the Complaint, which response would be due on or before August 31, 2009, pursuant to the parties’ agreement.
4. Prior to making this extension request, Counsel for Defendant had understood that Plaintiff was seeking a waiver of service from Defendant. Before Defendant was able to respond to that request, however, the Complaint was apparently served on Defendant in New York. Plaintiff has represented that such service took place on July 28, 2009. Counsel for Defendant did not become aware of such service until August 20, 2009.
5. Defendant respectfully submits that good cause exists to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the Complaint, including: This is Defendant’s first request for an extension of time in this matter; Defendant needs additional time to prepare its response to the Complaint, including to prepare any initial motions; Counsel for Defendant faces time constraints caused by the demands of pre-existing matters and commitments; and, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the extension proposed in this Motion and Stipulation.
6. Nothing in this extension request should serve to waive any substantive right of defense available to Defendant, including but not limited to any defenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or otherwise. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant jointly request that this Court issue an order extending defendant Deutsche Bank AG’s time to respond to the Complaint, which response would now be due on or before August 31, 2009.
DATED: August 25, 2009 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE LLP
By: /s/ Julianne Hull
Charles T. Hoge
Julianne Hull
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Patriot Scientific Corporation
DATED: August 25, 2009 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
By: /s/ Peter Yu, Jr.
Peter Yu, Jr.
Attorneys for Defendant
Deutsche Bank AG
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
vs.
DEUTSCHE BANK AG,
Defendant.
On August 26, 2009, Defendant filed an ex parte application for extension of time in which to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint (the “Second Extension Motion”). The parties previously moved jointly for an extension of time, which the Court Granted, extending the time in which to answer or otherwise respond until August 31, 2009. In the meantime, Defendant filed a motion to stay proceedings, citing arbitration which, it argues, will dispose of all issues. In the Second Extension Motion, Defendant asks for an extension of time in which to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint until 20 days after the Court rules on the motion to stay. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the Second Extension Motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 12.1, the Court may grant an extension of time to respond to a complaint only upon a showing of good cause. The Second Extension Motion cites, as reasons the extension should be granted, the conservation of judicial resources, the likely success of the motion to stay, the risk of inconsistent rulings, and danger of mooting the motion to stay. None of these arguments are persuasive. The mere filing an answer, or even a motion to dismiss, does not consume a great deal of judicial resources, and the Court need not rule on a motion to dismiss until after the motion to stay is decided. The primary burden on judicial resources or the resources of parties would be in the form of an early neutral evaluation (“ENE”), which under local rules would be held within 45 days of the filing of an answer. See Civil Local Rule 16.1(c). The magistrate judge in charge of the ENE may, however, tailor it to take the status of the case into account, minimizing the burden on the Court and parties. If appropriate, a follow-up ENE or other conference can be held. A motion to dismiss would not trigger the scheduling of an ENE. The filing of an answer is ordinarily not particularly onerous, so it is unclear why requiring Defendant to do so would moot the motion to stay. Furthermore, Defendant can seek to amend the answer appropriate after the Court rules on the motion to stay. The Court finds good cause only for a short extension of time, to permit Defendant to either answer or file a motion to dismiss. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint no later than Friday, September 4, 2009.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 31, 2009
N HONORAB LARR ALA BURNS
United States District Judge
So long.....
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Matzelbub" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
New Pacer--JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
posted on Sep 09, 09 10:30PM
New Pacer--JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Farella Braun & Martel LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Defendants.
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION AND GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT
Date: September 18, 2009
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
Before: Honorable Jeremy Fogel
Defendants Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively, “Defendants”), along with Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation and Gateway, Inc. (“Acer”) and Barco, N.V. (“Barco”) hereby submit the following Supplemental Joint Case Management Conference Statement in advance of the Conference
scheduled for September 18, 2009.
Procedural Background
On May 1, 2009, Plaintiff Acer filed a Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Reexamination of the Patents-In-Suit. HTC filed a similar motion in the related action, 5:08-cv- 00882 JF. On June 17, the Court granted a 90-day stay in the Acer and HTC cases, and sua sponte ordered a corresponding stay in the Barco matter.
Current Status Of Patents-In-Suit
The five patents-in-suit have collectively been the subject of 13 separate requests for reexamination since September 2006. The following developments have occurred since the Court’s June 17 Order staying the case:
1. ‘336 Patent
A total of five requests for reexamination have been filed on the ‘336 patent. Three requests are currently pending. a. Reexam # 90/008,237 (NEC filed 9/21/2006); Reexam # 90/008,306 (Toshiba filed on 10/19/2006); Reexam # 90/008,474 (Public Patent Foundation filed on 01/30/2007)1: 1 These three reexamination requests were merged into a single proceeding on April 11, 2008.On August 14, 2009, the Examiner published the summary of an August 6, 2009 interview stating that asserted claims 1, 6, and 10 would be allowed as amended by the examiner. The summary does not indicate the proposed amendment suggested by the examiner. Asserted claims, 3, 7, and 9 would be canceled. On August 19, the PTO granted TPL’s request for a one month extension of time, to September 23, to file an appeal brief pending the possible issuance of a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (“NIRC”). The PTO has not yet issued a NIRC. b. Reexam # 90/009,457 (Fish & Richardson filed 4/24/2009) On July 23, 2009, the PTO vacated this reexamination request as incomplete. The PTO permitted the petitioner one month to correct its request. On August 25, the petitioner filed a corrected reexamination request that is currently pending. c. Reexam # 90/010,551 (White & Case filed on 5/22/2009) Reexamination was denied on July 31, 2009. The PTO has given the requestor one month to request review with the Commissioner.
2. ‘584 Patent
a. Reexam # 90/008,225 and Reexam # 90/008,2992 A Reexamination Certificate issued on July 21, 2009, with amended Claim 29. Defendants have not asserted infringement of the ‘584 patent in a counterclaim.
3. ‘749 Patent
a. Reexam # 90/009,034 (ARM filed on 2/11/2008) On July 17 and 21, TPL submitted 524 documents for a total of 39,487 pages of prior art material for the examiner to consider as part of the reexamination. b. Reexam # 90/009,389 (Fish & Richardson filed on 01/16/2009) Reexamination was ordered on April 8, 2009. c. Reexam # 90/010,520 (HTC filed on 4/30/2009) The PTO granted a reexamination request on July 24, 2009 based on a determination that nine references raised substantial questions of patentability regarding all the asserted claims.
4. ‘148 Patent
2 These two reexamination proceedings merged into a single proceeding on June 14, 2007. Two reexaminations are still pending. a. Reexam #90/008,227 (NEC filed on 9/21/2006) On July 2 and 3, TPL submitted 286 documents for a total of 32,359 pages of prior art material for the examiner to consider as part of the reexamination. b. Reexam #90/010,562 (HTC filed on 5/29/2009) There have been no significant changes since the parties last reported to the Court.
5. ‘890 Patent
a. Reexam #90/009,388 (Fish & Richardson filed on 1/16/2009) There have been no significant changes since the parties last reported to the Court that a reexamination had been ordered on April 8, 2009.
ACER’S STATEMENT
There has not been sufficient activity in the reexaminations to warrant lifting the stay of this case. The Court stayed the action for three months on the basis that a limited stay may provide additional intrinsic evidence relevant to claim construction. The remaining patents-insuit3 are still in various stages of reexamination at the PTO and an additional three month stay would be beneficial to allow final actions for the remaining patents-in-suit. Further, a three month stay would essentially start this case at the beginning of the year, after the winter holidays, thus preventing scheduling difficulties should the case proceed. Acer/Gateway has not participated in any of the filed reexaminations.
BARCO’S STATEMENT
Barco is not in favor of a lengthy or indefinite stay in this case, and is prepared to proceed as soon as the Court lifts the stay. In accordance with Barco’s earlier motion to be excused from the ADR process, Barco maintains its view that, due to the complex nature of this case, no form of ADR would be appropriate.
DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT
Not surprisingly, Acer seeks a continuance of the stay, creating the spectre of a prolonged, indefinite stay that the Court warned against during the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to stay. A 3 TPL has made no claim of infringement against Plaintiffs as to the ‘584 patent lengthy stay, or even a 90-day stay, is inappropriate given the PTO’s recent action on the reexamination of the ‘336 patent. The patent examiner has assured TPL on multiple occasions that the PTO will issue a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate (“NIRC”) within the next few weeks for the ’336 patent, effectively concluding all re-examinations on that patent. First, at the August 6, 2009 examiner interview, the patent examiner reached an agreement with TPL regarding the patentability of asserted claims 1, 6, and 10 in addition to claims 11-12, 16-17, and 19-20 from the ‘336 patent. The examiner further indicated that all outstanding issues were resolved regarding the ‘336 patent and that he would shortly issue a NIRC. Second, the patent examiner’s published interview notes, which were posted on August 13, 2009, confirm that the PTO intends to reissue the aforementioned claims from the ‘336 patent and that the examiner would prepare the NIRC action. Third, the patent examiner re-confirmed on a teleconference with TPL in the last week that he intends to issue the NIRC on the ‘336 patent in the next few weeks. Thus, the Defendants have a reasonable basis to believe that the ‘336 patent will reissue shortly. Therefore, the Defendants support a brief extension of the current stay, no longer than 45 days, to allow that to occur as the issuance of the NIRC may expedite the eventual resolution of this action. TPL opposes an indefinite stay or another 3-month stay pending final conclusion of the various reexamination proceedings, as all indications are that TPL’s adversaries have seized upon the reexamination process to tie these patents up inside the PTO for an extended period of time, and there is no timetable for the resolution of all the other pending re-examinations. Nevertheless, TPL acknowledges that clarity on the ‘336 patent’s claims may expedite the eventual resolution of this dispute. Furthermore, the pending allowance of the ‘336 patent claims may impact settlement positions. Those claims closely track Judge Ward’s already-issued claim constructions, and will likely act to expedite the claim construction process. Thereafter, this case should resume as quickly as possible. As shown by the three additional requests for reexamination filed just since the Motions to Stay were first brought in early May, either the litigants, their unidentified allies, or others interested in thwarting TPL’s abilities to license its MMP portfolio are determined to tie up the patents in an endless stream of requests for reexamination. Furthermore, the PTO has made it clear that the more than 700 references asserted against the ‘336 patent by the five different petitioners4 is not only exhaustive but not relevant, and will not be further considered. 4 As noted in the description of the reexamination proceedings above, TPL submitted the Plaintiffs’ prior art references disclosed in this litigation relative to the ‘749 and ‘148 patents to the PTO for consideration during the reexamination process.
Dated: September 8, 2009 K&L GATES LLP
By: /s/ Harold H. Davis, Jr.
Timothy P. Walker
Harold H. Davis, Jr.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
By: /s/ Edward Runyan
Edward K. Runyan
Daniel J. O’Connor
Tod L. Gamlen
Attorneys for Plaintiff Barco N.V.
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ John Cooper
John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
I represent that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on this document.
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE, LLP
By: /s/ Charles Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION